Dave,
Yes, the Definitions are well worth the additional cost over Druids. In every way, the Definition is the more accurate capable speaker -- except one. The Druid can be used relatively near field and does have a special intimacy of presentation on close listening of modest scale music. Otherwise, Definitions are wider-band, tonally more neutral, considerably more revealing of fine detail and micro-dynamics, and they scale up for large performances. That said, you need a larger room than for Druids, and usually 11 linear feet of distance from speaker baffle to ear, or more, for the Definition's sound to fully integrate.
I've said in the past that Druids give you the essential Zu qualities and 70% of Definition sound at 30% of the price. But that remaining 30% is well worth paying for if you can afford Defs.
As for your desire for more clarity on the matter of why you might have to get accustomed to a Zu speaker, I'll say it a little differently: Speakers as a whole just haven't been very good to date. The transducers in general are where a disproportionate number of the problems occur in the hifi chain, because their job is difficult. We've come to believe in the progress of cumulative technical development, and many have learned to discern improvements to products derived from a mistaken path. We all know that hifi at best is still a miserable approximation of sonic reality, but it gives us enough cues to be convinced, mind filling in the rest. The holism of a Zu speaker's behavior and sonic presentation is more like a real instrument's sound, but the absence of distortions and compressions we've become accustomed to accepting as part of hifi *can* make them sound momentarily disorienting when you're comparing them to another conventional speaker. If everyone got the speakers and immediately compared their sound on a trusted recording to the sound of a live instrument, it's far less likely this momentary disorientation would occur.
Phil
